DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19930.04802

Internet is indeed a vast ocean of knowledge now which brings authentic news, bad news, sad news and fake news all at once from trusted, not so trusted and not trusted sources. After artificial intelligence and machine intelligence have taken over the responsibility of mapping and bridging minds for fostering human relationships for networking, to dating to commercial partnership purposes, we got to see heavy volume of breach of TRUST from trusted partners. Indeed, this has given rise to numbers of cybercrimes and women and children are worst affected.

My this month’s case study therefore includes the unfortunate “breach of trust” case of a European woman in India by her Instagram male friend in the early weeks of March, 2025. News reports suggested that while the whole world was busy discussing about “For ALL Women and Girls: Rights. Equality. Empowerment” for UN women’s day, and women’s right month, a British woman complained to a local Delhi police station about alleged rape by a man who asked her to come to Delhi for a meet. While the case would have been primarily focusing on physical rape that is addressed by S.63 (rape) and 64 (punishment for rape), Indian laws, especially Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) still do not have specific law to address communication for the purpose of committing sexual offences in physical space.

What kind of online offence is created in this case?

A brief over view of the newspaper reports may suggest that the communication between the accused and the victim did not elevate to the scale of offensive speech. The victim met the man over social media platform, traveled to India as a tourist and wanted to meet the ‘friend’. The latter  rejected the offer to meet her in the place where she was staying and asked her to come to place where he was staying. The communication between them could have been a normal one between two consenting adults and this may not attract the attention of the investigating officers unless the communication may suggest that the man was impersonating someone or it was sexually explicit or obscene that is restricted as per Indian legal understanding under S.67A and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008). But as it is said “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”, whether the language is considered offensive and when it turned into for the victim, who was probably consensually reciprocating, needs to be established by prosecution to give the entire case an additional profile of online crime too.

Consensual communication and victim blame game:

Interestingly on 17^th October, 2025, Information Technology Act, 2000 will be celebrating 25^th year of existence. And in these 25 years we have come to understand that the concept of content based cybercrimes basically emphasizes one major tool: language of the communication. It can be deceptive, threatening, insulting, harassing. it can be expressed in end numbers of ways including pictograms, digital graffiti and any legible textual communication mode.  Given this understanding, legal debates are also shifting towards consensual acceptance of the offer ‘to accept’ the relationship by the recipient. Indeed, the burden of proof now falls on the victim to establish that the communicator was impersonating, playing fraudulent cards or was in a relationship with the victim in order to pass on threatening, harassing communication to her. It is majorly for this reason that most of the victims start feeling guilty and avoid going to the police fearing victim blame game.

But not to forget, State plays the role of victim too and hence ‘victim blame game’ may definitely backfire on the investigators and the prosecutors if proper access to justice and assistance for the direct victim is denied in the name of blame game.

 A key player in this is indeed the intermediary. For long, the intermediaries have adopted the practice of due diligence for escaping the liability of knowingly hosting such faulty communicator and the communication that may be falling outside the scope of protected speech. Indian laws have also provided the protection for the intermediaries under S.79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008), which addresses exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases. The exemption clauses were further clarified by Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011.

The trust:

Now comes the question of “trusted” friend. Again, the accused may be wrapped up in criminal liabilities if he was impostering as internet Romeo. But if he had used genuine information for building up a trusted relationship with an adult ‘aware’ and empowered woman, he may not be considered an offender under provisions like S.66C (addressing identity theft and punishment for the same), 66D(cheating by personation and punishment for the same  ) of the Information Technology Act2000(amended in 2008). Neither he may be apprehended under S.319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (cheating by impersonation). The victim therefore will be left with laws addressing physical rape only subject to the consequences of investigations on the records of communication. Trust therefore will be considered a mere emotional factor here which is broken because of lack of anticipation of the behavior of the ‘instagram friend’.

But then if the victim can prove that she had a ‘consensual’ communication and the trust (and consent) was built up on misconception of fact (as S.28 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita explains for clarifying what is NOT a GENUINE consent), the accused can further be wrapped with charges under Sections 66C and D of the Information Technology Act and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Indeed, this becomes a tedious work for the investigating officer and the prosecutor as they need to establish the behavior of the accused, past criminal and institutional records and intention for networking with women through cyber space.

What can be the best forum?

The reports suggested that the victim lodged the complaint with a local police station in Delhi. Interestingly this could have included a triangle of ‘forum shopping’ if this was limited only with online crime: victim is from UK, defendant is from India, their profiles and communication were facilitated on intermediary which follows US rules. One arm of this triangle will be automatically vanishing since the intermediary may be taking the protective shield of due diligence laws.

  But not to forget, the offence of physical sexual violence on the victim from another jurisdiction has happened in Delhi, India. Defendant is apparently a resident of Delhi and the place of occurrence is also Delhi.  Therefore, trial courts in Delhi can take the matter for consideration for punishing the accused if proven guilty. The victim however needs to be satisfied with the offer of legal and medical aid and either apology and compensation (if decided by the court that may be extracted from the fine), or a judicial assurance of prevention of repetition of the crime as long as the accused (and if convicted) /convicted is under lawful detention.

But we did see revenge-gratification in such cases. The court can extend the preventive order against the accused (even if he somehow manages to get bail while bail is generally not a rule for rape cases).

Let March be the month for renewal of our faith to equality, equal right to access to justice and respect for women as human beings.

Please note: Please do not violate the copyright of this post. Please cite it as Halder Debarati (March 16, 2025). Can we have TRUST on “trusted” partners? 2025 Women’s day speaks a different story. Published in https://internetlegalstudies.com/2025/03/16/can-we-have-trust-on-trusted-partners-2025-womens-day-speaks-a-different-story-by-dr-debarati-halder/